the seat of Government, (Philadelphia,) where he was received with loud and enthusiastic demonstrations of joy by his numerous friends. Here, too, he undertook to carry· on his fillibustering scheme, and actually succeeded in fitting out at least one privateer, and getting her out to sea, during a brief absence of the President at Mount Vernon.

The conduct of Genet having at length become intolerable, it was unanimously agreed in Cabinet, that a letter should be sent to the French Government requesting his recall. This highly exasperated him. Even Mr. Jefferson, whom he regarded as a friend, became an object of displeasure; he having, as Genet alleged, used to him two languages, "one official and another confidential." He was soon after recalled. He, however, never returned to France, but remained in this country until the day of his death.

Although the Cabinet had unanimously agreed to the proclamation of neutrality, many eminent citizens and statesmen were opposed to it, and in favor of joining France. Among them was Mr. Jefferson, who considered our treaty obligations in full force, and who, though he had assented to the proclamation, regarded the question as merely reserved to the meeting of Congress.

The cause of France had been much weakened in this country by the reprehensible conduct of the French Minister. A reaction, however, was soon produced by certain impolitic measures of the British Government. A scarcity of provisions in France had induced the latter to open her ports to neutral commerce. Great Britain, hoping to reduce her enemy by famine, determined to cut off external supplies. British cruisers were instructed to stop all vessels carrying bread-stuffs to any port of France, and to bring them into a convenient port. If they were proved to be neutral property, the cargoes were to be purchased, and the ships released; or both cargoes and vessels were to be released on their masters' giving bonds that the cargoes should be disposed of in the ports of countries at peace with Great Britain. This measure Great Britain alleged to be justified by the law of nations, which made all provisions contraband and liable to confiscation, when the stopping of these supplies was intended as a means of reducing an enemy to terms of

peace. It was alleged, too, that the British orders did not go to the extent allowable; they did not prohibit all kinds of provisions, nor require forfeiture. The American Government, on the other hand, maintained that both reason and usage had established the right of a neutral nation to carry the products of their industry for exchange to all nations, belligerent or neutral, as usual, without injury or molestation. This measure greatly embarrassed American commerce, and, superadded to the supposed encouragement of Indian hostilities by the British in Canada, the continued occupation of the Western military posts, and the impressment of American seamen into the British service, awakened intense resentment in the American people toward Great Britain.

The British Government did not stop here. Orders more stringent were issued to the commanders of British vessels, under which orders American vessels engaged in the French and West India trade were seized, carried into British ports, and condemned. This new order greatly increased the excitement against Great Britain; and a war with that country was apprehended. Although this order was subsequently modified, the excitement was not allayed. All who refused to take the side of France against Great Britain, were represented as British partisans. Nor did it avail them to urge in justification of their neutrality that France had violated her treaty with us, and that our commerce had been harassed no less by French privateers than by those of Great Britain.

Resolutions proposing preparations for war and measures of retaliation, were introduced in Congress. Before these propositions were disposed of, the President, desirous to prevent war, concluded to make an effort at negotiation, and nominated to the Senate John Jay as Envoy Extraordinary to Great Britain. The nomination, after much opposition, was confirmed. As a successful negotiation was quite doubtful, preparations for war were deemed expedient, and the measures previously reported were in part adopted. Among these measures were the requisition for 80,000 militia to be ready to march at a moment's warning, and for the levying of additional duties on imports, taxes on carriages, &c.

The chief objects of Mr. Jay's mission were, to obtain restitution for spoliations of American commerce, and the fulfillment of the treaty of peace, some of the stipulations of which had not been observed. One of them was the surrender of the Western military posts which were still occupied. These objects secured, a treaty of commerce was to be proposed.

The charge against the President of being unfriendly to France seems to have been entirely unfounded. Mr. Jay was expressly instructed to say to the British Government, "that the United States would not derogate from their treaties and engagements with France." And to Mr. Monroe, who was soon after appointed our Minister to France, the Secretary of State, Mr. Randolph, said : "The President had been an early friend of the French revolution ; and whatever reasons there may have been to suspend an opinion upon some of its important transactions, yet is he immutable in his wishes for its accomplishment. ** We have pursued neutrality with faithfulness. We mean to retain the same line of conduct in future; and to remove all jealousy as to Mr. Jay's mission to London, you may say that he is positively forbidden to weaken the engagements between this country and France:"

The treaty was concluded on the 19th of November, 1794, and submitted to the Senate in extra session on the 8th of June, 1795. It secured the first of the primary objects of negotiation, namely, indemnity to American merchants for the illegal capture of their property under British orders. Also the Western posts were to be surrendered, but not until the 1st of June, 1796.

Of the numerous other provisions of the treaty, some were favorable, others unfavorable. But the terms were the best that could be secured. The Senate ratified the treaty, with the exception of one provision, which related to the West India trade, and recommended the addition of a clause suspending its operation; leaving for future negotiation this question, with that of the impressment of American seamen and others, upon which the parties had been unable to agree. With this modification the ratification was advised by a vote of 20 to 10 a bare constitutional majority.

This act of the Senate produced great excitement. It was denounced in public meetings and in newspapers. The Senators were treated with indignity; and an effigy of Mr. Jay was burned in Boston. Certain causes of delay having occurred, the President did not sign the treaty until the 14th of August, 1795. He became now himself an object of the vengeance of the opposition party. Even his private character was aspersed. He was charged with having appropriated public money for his private use; and he had violated the Constitution, and ought to be impeached. The friends of the treaty, however, appeared to increase in number, it being deemed unwise to expose the country to a war not required by the national honor,

The treaty was ratified by the British Government with the suspending clause annexed by the Senate; and on the 1st of March, 1796, the President sent a copy to the House, with the information that it had been proclaimed the law of the land. It now remained for the House to make provision for carrying the treaty into effect. To this a determined opposition was made. A warm debate arose which involved the Constitutional question, whether the assent of the House was essential to the obligation of the treaty; and whether the President had a right to negotiate a treaty of commerce. A resolution was moved, calling upon the President for a copy of his instructions to Mr. Jay, and other documents relating to the treaty. This was opposed by the minority, who maintained that a treaty was complete when assented to by the Senate, and signed by the Presi dent. After a long debate, the resolution was adopted, 62 to 37. The President declined to comply with the call, and stated at length his reasons. They are worthy of perusal, but the want of room forbids their insertion.

On a resolution, subsequently offered, declaring it expedient to carry this treaty into effect, another long debate took place, in which Mr. Madison and Mr. Gallatin opposed the treaty. Among those in its favor was Fisher Ames, whose speech is so famed for its eloquence. At its close, calls were made for the question; but the opposition members, fearing the immediate influence of the speech, postponed the question until the next day, (April 29th,) when it was carried in Committee of the Whole, by the casting

vote of the Chairman, (Muhlenburg.) It was then reported to the House, and passed, 51 to 48.

But the history of the "Jay treaty" is not yet ended The French Government, on being informed of its ratifica. tion by the President, informed Mr. Monroe, our Minister at Paris, that the Directory considered the alliance between the United States and France terminated by the treaty; that Adet, the French Minister to the United States, would be recalled; and a special Envoy was to be sent to make the announcement to the American Government.

Among the many complaints against the United States presented to Mr. Monroe by the French Government, one was, that the United States, in their treaty with Great Britain, had abandoned the principle, that free ships should make free goods, and that naval stores were made contraband. By treaties of the United States with France and Great Britain, French property in American vessels was liable to seizure by British cruisers, while British goods were secure in American vessels. But of this France had no reason to complain. Great Britain had only reserved a right to which she was entitled by the Law of Nations by which "the goods of a friend found in the vessels of enemy are free; and that the goods of an enemy in the vessel of a friend are lawful prize." But France, deeming it for her interest, had, in her treaties with the United States, preferred a different principle, "that free ships should make free goods."

an

It was the misfortune of France that she was now suffering the unforeseen consequences of her own voluntary act. And she had the less reason to complain, from the fact that she had, in her treatment of the United States, violated her own principle. She had, in May, 1793, issued a decree authorizing the capture of an enemy's property in neutral vessels, under which decree about fifty American vessels had been captured and deprived of their cargoes, and a greater number had been detained.

The French Directory had determined on some retaliatory measures, which had only been delayed, in the hope that the House of Representatives would defeat the treaty with Great Britain by refusing to provide for carrying it into effect. In June, 1796, news of the decision of the